People who make logical decisions based on the stock market are evil.
If you don’t believe this, then watch the latest liberal movie with George Clooney and Julie Roberts, Monster Money. The movie is directed by Jodie Foster. None of them are worrying about a monster in their financial future.
They’ll get to the bottom of the evil deeds done by Wall Street.
A short preview shows that security at the studio is lax. they let a man into the studio with a gun. Not smart; Jim Cramer, of CNBC Mad Money, would have been better about security, making sure there was no threat to life or limb.
But the idea is that since there is risk in the stock market, by God, there has to be risk to people’s lives when they are doing a show about risk. That’s not how it works; but it should be how it works. The greater the risk the more dangerous should be the risk to the people who are on the finance program, about risk, which means Cramer. In fact, Cramer should really be held to account for providing a lack of security in life; why should his life not be threatened? Isn’t it the same thing as acting like people’s investments are something to be profited from?
Of course, Clooney, Roberts and Foster want to be safe; they are celebrities.
They probably don’t know anything about financial risk either. Of course, that doesn’t keep them from making a movie about it. Of course, people who invest in the stock market generally have no one to blame but themselves. Investments are typically based on calculated risk.
In other words, let the buyer beware. But to liberals like Clooney and Roberts, people who will see this movie are stupid, and uneducated. They need to make a movie like this one, to help people who are not millionaires like them, get some help from Hollywood. In fact, most people are like Jack O’Connell; they need help from someone like Cramer. It’s just not fair; the stock market is too complicated
The couple in the movie have the rest of their lives ahead of them. It’s so unfair that they could lost their investments by watching a program like Monster Money. But why white people? It really demonstrates racism by portraying this troubled young couple as white, and not black. The chances are much greater that the people who don’t understand the stock market are black, not white, since blacks have lower education level.
“Am I going to get the changes before or after the show,” Roberts says.
“Just point the camera at me and we’ll figure it out together,” Clooney said.
“It always sounds so simple, and yet so moronic,” she says.
Here’s the idea; while men, like Cramer, may be smart on their feet, they can still be dissed by people like Roberts. Why? Because she is a female and he is a male. Women don’t want to host a financial investments show like this. So she has to put him down because he is a man. Thus the insult.
And Cramer is a male; the producers may be female. We can’t find a female to replace someone like Cramer. but we can a female producer, like Roberts.
“Anyone who can get out, get out right now,” says Julie Roberts in her role. Roberts is willing to sacrifice herself in her matronly role, as a middle-age female producer. “Do not look up, do not make eye contact.”
“Stay calm, I’m right here,” Roberts says.
Cramer is wealthy enough to not have to do the Mad Money show on CNBC. He is a former hedge fund manager, and a best-selling author. He is also a co-founder of TheStreet, as in the the Wall Street. But that’s just the point, isn’t it? He is just adding to his wealth, which is not really fair.
“Without risk, there is no reward,” says Lee Gates, AKA, Clooney. “Get some balls. Man up.”
“I want the cameras on Patty, turn them on,” Clooney says, as his life is threatened with a gun. Immediately, the cameras are flooded across Times Square, electronics stores.
But its a white guy with the gun, not what we would expect.
The directors, as liberals, need to bash white people, people of privilege, although the white people have no control over what’s happening and it’s not likely that they would ever do this. This is called equal opportunity terrorism.
“My hand comes off this trigger, and we all explode,” says the white terrorist, Jack O’Connell. “I’m not the one with the gun here. I’m not the real criminal, it’s people like these guys.”
What does this mean? White people, like the children of Clooney, Roberts and Foster, can be irrational, terrorist-like also. And white people should be given the opportunity to be terrorists, should they not? At least in the movies.
Roberts, like Clooney, is conflicted, like liberals are in these situations. What do they do? Should they shoot the perpetrator, the terrorist, on site. This is where liberals stand: every life, no matter if one is a criminal, is as important as one who is not a criminal.
It’s a strange concept, but one that is popular for liberals: the criminals, the terrorists, can’t control what they do. We should feel sorry for them. We want to protect their humans lives.
But Clooney wants to bring life, or meaning to the actions of this terrorist, as though every terrorists has some higher purpose beyond just killing people. What is the meaning behind killing these people? Let’s find out. That’s why liberals are here; let’s not just protect human life. Let’s protect the terrorist as much as we protect innocent lives. This is the quandary of the liberal. But it also makes them better than people who are Christians. This is their higher calling, to find some significance in life-threatening circumstances, when the reasonable thing to do would be to kill the terrorist.
Here’s what’s wrong with this concept. The people who threatened and killed as many as 3,000 in the World Trade Center, should have been killed, assassinated before being allowed to kill a massive number of people. It’s a similar situation in every incident that involves a terrorist. The terrorist should be killed before they are allowed to kill innocent human life.
“I’m telling you it’s rigged, the whole damn thing,” says O’Connell. “They’re stealing everything from us and they’re getting away with it too?”
“You lost a lot of money when the market tanked,” Clooney says.
But how is that possible? How can someone that young have lost a lot of money? How much money did they actually have in invested? Someone who talks with a New York accent and wears a common hoodie overcoat, like it’s freezing outside?
Is this a union worker? Did he have his money invested with Bernie Madoff? How much money could someone this young actually have invested? Probably not very much, if anything at all. And how is he any different than everybody else who lost money in 2008?
“Nobody was asking any questions before,” says another well-known actor.
“You want an explanation for what went wrong,” Clooney says.
“We don’t know,” says another female.
So he does the obvious rational thing; he shoots the TV screen.
This should be the calling card for Black Lives Matter activists: We don’t know what’s going on. We don’t understand what’s going on. We want to change what’s going on. So let’s just engage in civil disobedience, and bring some guns and threaten too shoot some people. That will solve a lot of problems. As irrational as it sounds, it’s a blueprint for the Black Live Matter movement.
We’re in this together now, Clooney says.
You came here to get some answers. You deserve to get some answers.
Actually he does not deserve to get some answers; he deserves to get shot dead as any person who threatens others with a gun does.
What happened in 2008? Instability. People who invest their money are always told that there is risk involved in investing in the stock market, or other places where money is invested.
Perhaps with all the research that has gone into making this movie, the three mains should start their own investment firm: Clooney, Foster and Roberts. They can play their ads during all of the other programs that rich people watch: golf tournaments, tennis tournaments.
They wont’ be showing them during sporting events that O’Connell would watch: football, hockey, baseball. No, those are sports for common people. And Clooney, Foster and Roberts are not common people; they are rich liberals, people who are smarter than the rest of us.
We can only thank them for publicizing all of the corruption in Wall Street, so we can protect the common man from all kinds of dire consequences of being able to invest with risk. Now we know that life is dangerous, it’s full of risk.
Now we know that we should not shoot terrorists, because they all have an element of sanity that belies their what is clearly an insane approach to solving life’s problems. The next time someone like Charles Manson attempts to kill a bunch of people, why don’t we just turn the cameras on him, and probe the depths of a real killer, and learn something about life and risk and truth. This would no doubt satisfy liberals like Clooney, Foster and Roberts.
© 2016 Larry Ingram